TITLE I EVALUATION, 2004-2005...04.04 Title I Evaluation Report, 2004-2005 percentage of teachers remained at Title I schools (67.6%) than non-Title I schools (78.8%) from 2003-2004

TITLE I EVALUATION, 2004-2005

Austin Independent School District Department of Program Evaluation

October 2005

04.04 Title I Evaluation Report, 2004-2005

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Austin Independent School District (AISD) received $19,270,573 in federal Title I Part A entitlement funding in 2004-2005 to support schools’ efforts to provide students with the opportunity to acquire the knowledge and skills necessary to meet state academic performance standards. These funds, authorized by the federal No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act (2001), target students at schools with high concentrations of low-income children in their attendance zones. The majority of Title I funds was spent at Title I schools for instructional payroll, supplies, and support. During 2004-2005, 69 AISD schools had Title I designation, representing 62% of AISD’s 111 schools. According to the district’s fall 2004 student records submission to the Texas Education Agency (TEA), there were 49,739 students attending Title I schools, representing 62.2% of AISD’s total student population (N = 79,950). The data show a 4.3 percentage point growth in the Title I student population from 2003-2004 to 2004-2005. Title I funds also were available to serve 363 eligible students attending participating private schools or facilities for neglected youth within the AISD attendance zone.

Part of the NCLB legislation requires that all public school districts receiving federal funds must ensure that all teaching staff are highly qualified in core academic subject areas by the end of 2005-2006. Based on data submitted to TEA during 2004-2005, 97.5% of AISD teachers were highly qualified (i.e., certified) in the core area that they taught. At the end of the 2004-2005 school year, slightly more than 100 AISD teachers had not yet become highly qualified, and most of these teachers were at Title I schools. These specific individuals will become certified and highly qualified by the end of the 2005-2006 school year. Further evidence of AISD’s high quality teaching staff was documented using professional development records. These records indicated that all AISD teachers had completed professional development during the 2004-2005 school year. The federal legislation also requires that paraprofessional staff providing instructional support must be highly qualified through state certification or educational degree attainment, and AISD met this requirement for 2004-2005.

Some differences in years of teaching experience remain between teachers at AISD Title I schools and non-Title I schools. Based on district records, AISD teachers’ average years of teaching experience was lower at Title I schools (10.9) than at non-Title I schools (13.7). In addition, the percentage of teachers with five years or less teaching experience was higher at Title I schools (37.3%) than at non-Title I schools (23.4%). To examine the context surrounding teacher experience, the mobility of AISD teachers from 2003-2004 to 2004-2005 was examined. While most teachers (71.6%) remained at the same school, a smaller

i


percentage of teachers remained at Title I schools (67.6%) than non-Title I schools (78.8%) from 2003-2004 to 2004-2005.

Since the primary goal of the Title I legislation and of the school district is to assure that all students are successful in making academic progress, AISD student results from the state-mandated 2005 Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) were analyzed using the state accountability student subset. AISD students showed academic performance strengths in some subject areas, with high TAKS passing rates in reading and language arts (79.9%), writing (87.3%), and social studies (84.1%). However, passing rates were not as high in the areas of mathematics (68.4%) and science (64.7%). The percentages of students meeting passing standards across the district were smallest at grades six through ten in mathematics and at grade ten in science. Performance differences remain between students at Title I schools and non-Title I schools in all subjects tested, with Title I school students meeting passing standards at lesser percentages than non-Title I school students. The largest disparity was in science, with 50.6% of Title I students and 79.9% of non-Title I students meeting passing standards on the spring 2005 assessment. An analysis of district student TAKS performance by federal accountability student groups indicated that regardless of whether the student attended a Title I school or a non-Title I school, White students tended to pass all TAKS subject tests at higher rates than students who were economically disadvantaged, limited English proficient, receiving special education services, African American, or Hispanic.

However, a comparison of 2004 to 2005 reveals that AISD students have shown progress in meeting TAKS passing standards on all assessments. A recalculation of 2004 TAKS data using the State Board of Education’s Panel Recommended passing standard showed growth from 2004 to 2005 in percentages of AISD students meeting TAKS passing standards in all subjects tested. In most cases, percentage point gains were higher at Title I schools than at non-Title I schools. The greatest percentage point gain was in TAKS science (16.5 percentage point gain at Title I schools, 13.0 percentage point gain at non-Title I schools).

Other academic performance data for AISD students receiving special education services were analyzed for 2004-2005. The State Developed Alternative Assessment II (SDAA II), designed for students receiving special education services and for whom the TAKS is not an appropriate assessment, measures whether test takers meet the expectations set by their Admission, Review, and Dismissal (ARD) committees. The 2005 SDAA II results showed that student passing rates were highest in reading (76.5%) and mathematics (73.1%) and lowest in writing (54.9%). In most instances, only small percentage point differences existed between Title I schools and non-Title I schools in the percentages of students meeting the ARD committee’s expectations.

ii


Recent state and federal ratings issued to every public school and school district raise concerns for some AISD schools because the ratings largely are based on academic performance and progress. Preliminary ratings for schools based on 2004-2005 data indicate that 17 AISD schools were identified as having Missed Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) in the federal accountability system. Of these schools, 14 are Title I schools and all are either middle or high schools. In the state’s accountability rating system, 5 AISD schools received the lowest rating, Academically Unacceptable, and all are Title I schools. However, because the two rating systems use different base indicators, 13 schools that had Missed AYP had received an Academically Acceptable state rating. Only 4 schools that Missed AYP also failed to meet the state accountability standards.

Due to state and federal requirements, the staff at schools that Missed AYP must take certain actions. The staff at these schools must develop, submit, and implement a two-year plan for improving the entire school program. These schools must offer choice options to their current students such that they may choose to transfer to other schools in the district. Furthermore, 5 of the 17 schools have missed AYP for three consecutive years, which means that they must offer their economically disadvantaged students access to supplemental academic support services outside of the regular school day.

The AISD Title I program provides key supplemental support to the district’s strategies for improving the academic performance of its students. However, there is room for ongoing improvement in the following areas:

• By federal law, all teachers must be highly qualified by the end of 2005-2006. AISD has plans in place to help all teachers become highly qualified so that all students are taught by teachers certified in their core subject area(s).

• The district must ensure that funds are coordinated across fund sources, allocated, and spent in very strategic ways so that students and teachers who need the most support receive the largest benefit. Due to poor student performance, the district should focus funds on reading, mathematics and science. Those funds should be targeted to reach students who are struggling academically in middle and high school grades, and efforts should be aimed at students who are economically disadvantaged, African American, Hispanic, limited English proficient, or receiving special education services.

• AISD staff must examine the key characteristics of successful schools that raise or maintain high levels of student performance in core academic areas.

iii


iv


TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................................................................... I TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................ V LIST OF FIGURES.....................................................................................................................VII LIST OF TABLES .....................................................................................................................VIII TITLE I PROGRAM OVERVIEW................................................................................................... 1

Title I Budget ....................................................................................................................... 1 AISD Title I Schoolwide Program....................................................................................... 3 Extended Learning............................................................................................................... 3 Other Title I Support............................................................................................................ 4

Support for Parent and Family Involvement ................................................................... 4 Educational Support Services to Students ....................................................................... 5 Blueprint Schools Initiative ............................................................................................. 5 School Choice .................................................................................................................. 5 Curriculum Support ......................................................................................................... 6 Grant Administration ....................................................................................................... 6

STUDENTS AND STAFF .............................................................................................................. 7 Students Served by Title I.................................................................................................... 7

Homeless Students........................................................................................................... 9 Students Served by Private Schools .............................................................................. 10 Students Served by Facilities for Neglected Youth ....................................................... 10

AISD Teaching Staff ......................................................................................................... 10 Highly Qualified ............................................................................................................ 10 Teacher’s Opinions About Using Student Achievement Data ...................................... 12 Paraprofessionals ........................................................................................................... 16

STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND ACADEMIC PROGRESS ............................................................. 18 TAKS................................................................................................................................. 18

TAKS 2005 .................................................................................................................... 19 TAKS Progress .............................................................................................................. 23

SDAA II............................................................................................................................. 24 FEDERAL AND STATE ACCOUNTABILITY................................................................................. 28

Adequate Yearly Progress ................................................................................................. 28 State Accountability Ratings ............................................................................................. 29

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................................... 31 Summary............................................................................................................................ 31

Program Funds and Students Served ............................................................................. 31 Student Academic Performance..................................................................................... 31 Teachers and Paraprofessional Staff.............................................................................. 32 State Accountability and Federal AYP Ratings............................................................. 33

Recommendations.............................................................................................................. 34 APPENDICES............................................................................................................................ 37

Appendix A: AISD Teachers’ Responses to Survey Questions on Use of Student Academic Data, Spring 2005 ............................................................................................. 38 Appendix B: AISD Students’ TAKS 2005 Performance by Grade and Subject for Title I Schools, Non-Title I Schools, and All Schools ................................................................. 40

v


Appendix C: Key Differences Between NCLB AYP and Texas State Accountability Systems .............................................................................................................................. 43

REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................... 47

vi


LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: AISD Title I Allocations by Object Categories, 2004-2005 .................................. 2 Figure 2: AISD Title I Allocations by Function Categories, 2004-2005............................... 2 Figure 3: Percentages of AISD Students by Ethnicity for Title I Schools, Non-Title I

Schools, and All Schools, Fall 2004.......................................................................... 7 Figure 4: Percentages of AISD At Risk, Economically Disadvantaged, Limited English

Proficient, and Immigrant Students at Title I Schools, Non-Title I Schools, and All Schools, Fall 2004 ............................................................................................... 8

Figure 5: Percentages of AISD Students by Educational Program Participation for Title I Schools, Non-Title I Schools, and All Schools, Fall 2004 ........................................ 9

Figure 6: Percentages of AISD Students Meeting TAKS 2005 Passing Standards by Subject for Title I Schools, Non-Title I Schools, and All Schools.......................... 19

Figure 7: Percentages of AISD Students Meeting TAKS 2005 Passing Standards in Reading or English Language Arts by Student Groups for Title I Schools, Non-Title I Schools, and All Schools ..................................................................... 20

Figure 8: Percentages of AISD Students Meeting TAKS 2005 Passing Standards in Writing by Student Groups for Title I Schools, Non-Title I Schools, and All Schools............................................................................................................... 21

Figure 9: Percentages of AISD Students Meeting TAKS 2005 Passing Standards in Mathematics by Student Groups for Title I Schools, Non-Title I Schools, and All Schools............................................................................................................... 21

Figure 10: Percentages of AISD Students Meeting TAKS 2005 Passing Standards in Science by Student Groups for Title I Schools, Non-Title I Schools, and All Schools............................................................................................................... 22

Figure 11: Percentages of AISD Students Meeting TAKS 2005 Passing Standards in Social Studies by Student Groups for Title I Schools, Non-Title I Schools, and All Schools............................................................................................................... 22

Figure 12: Percentages of AISD Students Meeting ARD Expectations for SDAA II Reading or English Language Arts 2005 by All Students and Student Groups for Title I Schools, Non-Title I Schools, and All Schools............................................. 26

Figure 13: Percentages of AISD Students Meeting ARD Expectations for SDAA II Writing 2005 by All Students and Student Groups for Title I Schools, Non-Title I Schools, and All Schools ........................................................................................ 26

Figure 14: Percentages of AISD Students Meeting ARD Expectations for SDAA II Mathematics 2005 by All Students and Student Groups for Title I Schools, Non-Title I Schools, and All Schools ...................................................................... 27

vii


LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: AISD Student Enrollment by Title I Schools and All Schools From 2000 to 2004 .............................................................................................................. 7

Table 2: Percentages of AISD Teachers’ Range and Average Years of Teaching Experience for Title I Schools, Non-Title I Schools, and All Schools, 2004-2005 ................................................................................................................ 11

Table 3: Percentages of 2004-2005 AISD Title I and Non-Title I School Teachers by Employment Status Compared With The Prior Year .............................................. 12

Table 4: AISD Teachers’ Opinions Regarding the Use of Student Achievement Data to Make Instructional Decisions, Spring 2005......................................................... 14

Table 5: Percentages of AISD Teachers’ Responses About Frequency of Recent Professional Development on Student Data, Spring 2005....................................... 15

Table 6: Numbers and Percentages of AISD Title I Schools’ Paraprofessional Staff with Instructional Duties by Educational Attainment, 2004-2005 .................................. 17

Table 7: Percentages of AISD Students Meeting TAKS Panel Recommended Passing Standards by Subject for Title I Schools, Non-Title I Schools, and All Schools, 2004 and 2005.......................................................................................................... 24

Table 8: Summary Counts of Preliminary Federal Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Ratings for AISD Title I and Non-Title I Schools in 2004 and 2005...................... 28

Table 9: Summary Counts of State Accountability Ratings in AISD by Title I and Non-Title I Schools for 2004 and 2005 ................................................................... 30

viii


TITLE I PROGRAM OVERVIEW

The United States Congress reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 by passing the No Child Left Behind Act in 2001 (P.L. 107-110). The Title I Part A program (referred to as the Title I program in the rest of this report) is the largest of the compensatory education programs included in this federal legislation, supported by funds from the U. S. Department of Education. The purpose of the Title I program is to support schools in providing opportunities for children served so that they may acquire the knowledge and skills described in state content standards and meet state performance standards set for all children (see http://www.ed.gov/legislation/ESEA02/pg1.html). The Title I program provides funds to state and local education agencies with high concentrations of low-income children.

For school district purposes, a low-income child is defined as one who is eligible for free or reduced-price meals based on family income. Schools are ranked annually in the Austin Independent School District (AISD) on the percentage of low-income students residing in their attendance zones. Most school districts must provide Title I funds to schools with 75% or more low-income students, and the remaining schools can be provided with Title I funds in rank order or some other order as defined by the school district. AISD provided Title I schoolwide program funding to those schools with 49.6% or more economically disadvantaged students.

In 2004-2005, AISD received a Title I allocation of $22,093,393. These funds were used to support students at 69 AISD public schools, 5 participating private schools, and 3 facilities for neglected youth that served Title I eligible students who live within AISD attendance zones. In addition, Title I funds were used to support services to AISD’s homeless student population, district parent involvement activities, and services to students provided by school to community liaisons. Finally, Title I funds were used to provide support in curriculum and grant administration. For a historical perspective on AISD’s Title I programs and services, see previous publications listed in the Reference section of this report.

TITLE I BUDGET

The total 2004-2005 Title I Part A program allocation of $22,093,393 to AISD from TEA included an entitlement of $19,270,573 and a roll-forward amount from 2003-2004 of $2,822,820. The majority (72.4%) of funds, $16,001,475, was allocated directly to AISD Title I schools, participating private schools, and facilities for neglected youth. The remaining funds: (a) provided support for programs and services across the district, (b) supplemented curriculum initiatives, and (c) contributed in part to grant administration. Figure 1 shows the Title I allocations for 2004-2005 by major object category, and indicates that most funds were

1


allocated to payroll. Figure 2 shows the same allocations by their function categories, and demonstrates that most funds were allocated to direct classroom instruction.

Figure 1: AISD Title I Allocations by Object Categories, 2004-2005

Indirect Costs3%

Supplies & Materials

10%Professional / Contracted

Services2%

Payroll82%

Other Operational Expenses

3%

Source: AISD Finance and State & Federal Accountability Records, 2004-2005

Figure 2: AISD Title I Allocations by Function Categories, 2004-2005

Community & Family Services

3%

Student Support Services

5%

Instruction & School

Leadership18%

Instruction70%

Non-student Support Services

4%

Source: AISD Finance and State & Federal Accountability Records, 2004-2005 Note: Function Codes included: Instruction (11, 12, 13); Instruction & School Leadership (21, 23); Student Support Services (31, 32, 33, 36); Non-student Support Services (51, 52, 53); Community & Family Services (61).

2


The total amount of 2004-2005 Title I expenditures in AISD was $18,975,416, or 85.9% of the total allocation. The majority ($15,803,578 or 83.3%) of these expenditures was for payroll, and supplies and materials, at the campus level.

AISD TITLE I SCHOOLWIDE PROGRAM

According to the U.S. Department of Education, a school can be designated as a Title I schoolwide program and may use Title I funds to upgrade the entire school program if 40% or more of the children residing in the school’s attendance zone are from low-income families. During 2004-2005, AISD provided Title I schoolwide program services to students at 69 schools with 49.6% or more economically disadvantaged students. According to preliminary student records submitted to the Texas Education Agency (TEA) as part of the Fall 2004 student data submission (i.e., Public Education Information Management System, or PEIMS), 49,739 AISD students were enrolled at 69 Title I schools as of October 2004. This number represents 62.2% of all AISD students (79,950) enrolled at that time.1

EXTENDED LEARNING

A total of 63 AISD Title I schools provided extended learning opportunities during the 2004-2005 school year. Such opportunities included after-school and summer academic enrichment, accelerated learning, and course credit recovery programs. These extended learning opportunities usually were funded through a combination of various local and grant monies. For instance, during the school year several Title I elementary schools held after-school accelerated learning programs in reading and mathematics for students in grades three and five who needed extra preparation for the annual TAKS assessment in those subjects. In addition, selected Title I middle and high schools held after-school or Saturday sessions for those students who were at risk of failing a grade level and needed to recover course credits or receive extra preparation for the TAKS. The following summer programs were offered during June and July 2005 at Title I schools: academic enrichment programs in various subject areas, middle and high school course credit recovery, prekindergarten and kindergarten program for limited English proficient students, English as a Second Language (ESL) middle school institute for immigrant students, accelerated instruction for third and fifth graders who failed TAKS reading or mathematics and needed to retake the test, and an extended year program for special education students.

1 PEIMS data will be verified and published later by TEA in the Academic Excellence Indicator System (AEIS).

3


OTHER TITLE I SUPPORT

Title I funds supported various additional efforts in AISD during 2004-2005, including parent involvement activities, educational support services to students, curriculum initiatives, and grant administration.

Support for Parent and Family Involvement

Parent involvement is an integral part of the Title I program and all AISD school operations. The district’s policies require schools and all district staff to support and enhance parent involvement through programs and activities based on six research-based standards of involvement: communication, parent training, support for student learning, community collaboration, school decision-making, and volunteering (see policy online at http://www.tasb.org/policy/pol/private/227901/pol.cfm?DisplayPage=GK(LOCAL).html). In addition, both Title I legislation and school district policy require that each school must have parent and community input on the campus improvement plan. The improvement plan itself must contain a component that addresses goals and resources for improving parent involvement. Further, the district requires parent membership on its District Advisory Council, and each school must have parent representation on its Campus Advisory Council. Each Title I school is required to have a parent involvement policy and a parent compact or agreement with input from parents. Each Title I school is responsible for hosting a parent meeting where parents and staff may review and discuss the school’s Title I schoolwide program and plan.

AISD staff administer a district parent survey annually as one of many ways to obtain input from all AISD parents, pursuant to Title I legislation and to Board policy on stakeholder treatment (see policy at http://www.austinisd.org/inside/policy/policy.phtml?type=el). During spring 2005, the one-page surveys were distributed to all AISD schools, where school staff redistributed the surveys to parents. Surveys also were made available online at the district’s Internet web page. The surveys, available in three languages (English, Spanish, and Vietnamese), addressed a variety of topics, including parents’ perceptions of how school staff treat them and their students, and whether or not parents reported that they had received certain types of information from school staff. A summary of the survey results is in the district’s parent involvement report listed in the Reference section of this report, and on the district’s Internet site at http://www.austinisd.org/inside/docs/ope_District_Parent_Survey_Report.pdf.

A portion of Title I funds must be set aside to support parent involvement activities if a school district receives a total Title I allocation greater than $500,000. For 2004-2005, AISD allocated approximately $703,684 to parent involvement, with 79% of the funds going directly to schools, 16% used to support the district’s Family Resource Center, and 6% allocated to support services for homeless students and their families in AISD. Of the funds allocated to

4


schools, the district set-aside was $163,931 for parent involvement as required by the grant; schools used $215,279 of their own Title I funds to support parent involvement activities; and $176,055 was used to support childcare services for children of AISD students at three Title I high schools. Of all parent involvement funds allocated in AISD, approximately 73% was spent on staff salaries.

The AISD Family Resource Center staff provide family support services through coordination of district parent involvement activities, monthly professional development provided to schools’ parent support specialists (n = 61), dissemination of parent involvement materials to schools, assistance to schools upon request, and service on district and community advisory councils. In addition, during 2004-2005, the Family Resource Center hosted a variety of seminars and classes for families (e.g., parenting skills, student attendance, and English as a second language), provided parents with free access to a local tax preparation service, coordinated the district’s annual family involvement week during March 2005, and took an active role in the City of Austin’s Celebration of Families. These services and classes involved more than 3,700 parents and family members. More details about the district’s parent involvement efforts can be found in the district’s parent involvement report publication listed in the Reference section of this report.

Title I funds used to support program services for homeless families and students in AISD are described later in this report in the section on homeless students.

Educational Support Services to Students

At the district level, approximately $274,038 in Title I funds were allocated to provide educational support services to students through salaries of school to community liaisons (74%), homeless student support staff and tutoring (6%), and vision/hearing screening staff (20%). Of this amount, 96% was expended.

Blueprint Schools Initiative

In 2004-2005, AISD continued to support its Blueprint Schools Initiative at four elementary and four secondary schools which had been experiencing poor academic performance among students. Approximately $371,138 in Title I funds were allocated to support this initiative at those schools, and most funds (93.2%) were spent on staff salaries, professional or contracted services, reproduction, supplies, reading materials, computer equipment, or employee travel.

School Choice

As required by Title I legislation, AISD offered school choice options to students at those Title I schools that Missed AYP in the previous school year. Students at these schools

5


could choose to attend another AISD school during 2004-2005, and these students will continue to have this choice until the school is off the Missed AYP list for two consecutive years. The funds set aside for this totaled $523,576, and of this amount, 31% was used for student transportation costs.

Curriculum Support

Approximately $1,864,731 in Title I funds were allocated at the district level to supplement a variety of curriculum initiatives during 2004-2005, and of this amount 92.4% was expended. The following curriculum areas were supported in part through Title I funds: reading and language arts, mathematics, science, social studies, dyslexia, bilingual education (for summer programs), prekindergarten program, and curriculum office administrative supervision from staff who assisted schools with struggling learners programs. Most expenditures were for staff salaries, materials, and supplies.

Grant Administration

Approximately $1,061,940 in Title I funds were allocated for general administrative support involving the following services and activities necessary to the Title I grant: state and federal accountability, program evaluation, and indirect costs. Of this amount, about half was used for indirect costs associated with district processing of all grant activities. An additional amount of $80,000 had been allocated for Human Resources support in the district’s efforts to ensure that all teachers became highly certified to meet this state and federal requirement. However, since these funds were received from TEA late in the school year, they could not be used during 2004-2005. Rather, they will be used in the 2005-2006 school year to ensure that the district meets the requirements for highly qualified teachers.

6


STUDENTS AND STAFF

STUDENTS SERVED BY TITLE I

Table 1 includes a summary of AISD enrollment for Title I students and all AISD students from Fall 2000 to Fall 2004 according to the district’s PEIMS submissions during this period. Since 2000, there has been a gradual growth in AISD’s overall student enrollment (an increase of 2,124 students from Fall 2000 to Fall 2004) and more rapid growth in AISD’s Title I school student enrollment (an increase of 14,098 from 2000 to 2004). Figure 3 shows that AISD Title I schools tend to have higher percentages of African American and Hispanic students compared to non-Title I schools and all AISD schools.

Table 1: AISD Student Enrollment for Title I Schools and All Schools From Fall 2000 to Fall 2004

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Number of AISD Title I Students 35,641 38,492 45,400 45,749 49,739 AISD Title I Students as a Percentage of All AISD Students 45.8% 50.3% 58.1% 57.9% 62.2%

Total Number of AISD Students 77,826 76,507 78,155 79,007 79,950 Source: AISD PEIMS Submission 1 Records, 2000 to 2004

Figure 3: Percentages of AISD Students by Ethnicity for Title I Schools, Non-Title I Schools, and All Schools, Fall 2004

1.8

16.9

70.6

0.24.4 7.50.4

59.4

2.813.3

54.7

0.210.6

28.4 28.9

0

20

40

60

80

100

Asian / PacificIslander

AfricanAmerican

Hispanic NativeAmerican

White

Perc

enta

ge

Title I Schools Non-Title I Schools All Schools

Source: AISD PEIMS Submission 1 Records, 2004

Figure 4 shows that in Fall 2004, AISD Title I schools served higher percentages of students who were at risk, economically disadvantaged, limited English proficient, and/or immigrant, compared to non-Title I schools and all schools. These percentages were similar to

7


those in Fall 2003. Economic disadvantage is the primary qualifier for a school’s Title I designation.

Figure 4: Percentages of AISD At Risk, Economically Disadvantaged, Limited English Proficient, and Immigrant Students at Title I Schools, Non-Title I Schools,

and All Schools, Fall 2004

61.4

80.4

33.1

9.6

34.522.7

5.6 2.0

51.358.6

22.7

6.7

0

20

40

60

80

100

At Risk EconomicallyDisadvantaged

Limited EnglishProficiency

Immigrant

Perc

enta

ge


Source: AISD PEIMS Submission 1 Records, Fall 2004

Figure 5 summarizes AISD student participation in various educational programs as of

Fall 2004. On a percentage basis, more AISD Title I than non-Title I students participated in bilingual education, English as a Second Language (ESL), and special education. Also, on a percentage basis, fewer AISD Title I than non-Title I students were served in the gifted and talented or the career and technology education programs. These results were similar to those from Fall 2003.

8


Figure 5: Percentages of AISD Students by Educational Program Participation for Title I Schools, Non-Title I Schools, and All Schools, Fall 2004

22.29.5 4.91.1 3.9

12.1 10.219.114.3

7.414.813.1 16.4

6.912.7

0

20

40

60

80

100

Bilingual English as aSecond

Language(ESL)

SpecialEducation

Gifted &Talented

Career &Technology

Perc

enta

ge


Source: AISD PEIMS Submission 1 Records, Fall 2004

Homeless Students

In AISD, all students who experience homelessness are eligible to receive Title I services regardless of which school they attend. A homeless person is defined according to the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act [USC 42 Section 111302 (a)] as an individual lacking a fixed, regular and adequate nighttime residence, or an individual who has a primary nighttime residence that is either a supervised temporary shelter, a temporary residential institution, or any place not ordinarily used as a regular sleeping accommodation. In AISD, the Project HELP program staff, whose salaries are funded by the McKinney Act and Title I, are charged with identifying and coordinating services to homeless students. The Project HELP staff also provide information and training regarding homelessness to AISD staff. For 2004-2005, $56,253 in Title I funds were set aside for services to AISD homeless students, and these funds supported Project HELP staff salary and supplies used to serve these students. Types of services that may be provided to homeless students include, but are not limited to, the following: tutoring, medical/health service referrals, school/instructional supplies, social service referrals, and clothing assistance. In addition, Title I funds partially supported the salary of a staff person at one of the elementary schools that many of AISD’s homeless students attend.

With the assistance of school personnel, Project HELP staff documented and verified records of AISD students identified as homeless at each school during 2004-2005. Using PEIMS data specifications that allow homeless students to be counted at each school they

9


attend during the year, a total of 2,264 AISD students were identified as homeless in AISD at some point during 2004-2005. The unduplicated count of these students was 2,110. Of this number, 77.1% attended Title I schools and 22.9% attended non-Title I schools. The total number verified for 2004-2005 was much higher than the number in 2003-2004 (n = 809) in part due to improved methods established by AISD staff to document and verify the homeless status of students who enroll in AISD schools.

Students Served by Private Schools

Title I allocations to participating private schools totaled $29,398, of which 61% was expended. Title I program services were provided to 279 students in early childhood through grade 12 at five private schools within AISD attendance boundaries during 2004-2005. These students received instructional support services in reading or English language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies. In 2003-2004, more private schools (n = 15) participated, and thus, more students (n = 917) were served.

Students Served by Facilities for Neglected Youth

Title I allocations to participating facilities for neglected youth totaled $83,324, of which 87% was expended. Title I program services were provided to 84 students at three facilities for neglected youth within AISD attendance boundaries during 2004-2005. These students received instructional support services in reading or language arts, mathematics, and science. In addition, some students received guidance/counseling support services or health/dental services. These numbers are similar to those from 2003-2004, in which there were two facilities for neglected youth and 79 students served. For more information on students served at these facilities, refer to the publication on Title I facilities for neglected or delinquent youth listed in the Reference section of this report.

AISD TEACHING STAFF

Highly Qualified

The NCLB Act requires school districts to have a plan for all teachers in core academic subject areas (e.g., reading, English language arts, mathematics, science, social studies) to become highly qualified by the end of school year 2005-2006. To be highly qualified, teachers must have at least a Bachelor’s degree, full state certification, and demonstrate competency in the core academic subject area assigned (TEA, 2003). AISD Human Resources staff reported to TEA that 4,882 teachers were employed in AISD and teaching in the classroom as of the end of the 2004-2005 school year. The TEA report also included summaries by school of the total number of teachers in core academic subject areas, and of those, the number who were highly qualified in their primary teaching assignment(s). This report also included information

10


regarding whether teachers were fully certified or on a permit. For the district, 4,759 or 97.5% of all teachers in 2004-2005 were highly qualified, compared to 92.2% in 2003-2004. There was little difference in the percentage of highly qualified teachers at Title I schools (97.3%) compared to non-Title I schools (97.7%). However, as in the previous school year, the actual number of teachers not highly qualified in 2004-2005 was still higher at Title I schools (n = 84) than at non-Title I schools (n = 39), indicating that Title I schools face a greater challenge in ensuring that all teachers are either highly qualified at time of hire, or become highly qualified within the year. Among all AISD teachers in 2004-2005, 0.7% had some type of teaching permit (e.g., emergency, one-year non-renewable, one year temporary classroom assignment, temporary district), a decrease from 1.9% in the previous year. The percentage of Title I school teachers with teaching permits was 2.7% (n = 18) and that of non-Title I school teachers was 0.9% (n = 16). Finally, the percentages of teachers who were not highly qualified and who did not have a teaching permit was 1.8% (n = 89) for the district, 2.1% (n = 66) for Title I schools, and 1.3% (n = 23) for non-Title I schools.

An analysis of 2004-2005 records reveals that teachers at non-Title I schools had an average of 13.7 years of teaching experience, compared with Title I teachers’ average of 10.9 years (Table 2). The range of years of teaching experience indicates that a higher percentage of Title I teachers (37.3%) than non-Title I teachers (23.4%) had five or fewer years of experience. Additionally, a higher percentage of non-Title I teachers (26.2%) than Title I teachers (18.8%) had 20 or more years of experience. These data are consistent with similar teacher experience data examined during 2003-2004 (see Doolittle, 2004).

Table 2: Percentages of AISD Teachers’ Years of Teaching Experience for Title I Schools, Non-Title I Schools, and All Schools, 2004-2005

Percentages of Teachers by Years of Teaching Experience

0-5 Years

6-10 Years

11-20 Years

20 + Years

Average Years of Teaching

Experience

AISD Title I School Teachers (n = 3,507)

37.3 22.4 21.5 18.8 10.9

AISD Non-Title I School Teachers (n = 1,940)

23.4 20.6 29.9 26.2 13.7

All AISD School Teachers (n = 5,447)

32.4 21.8 24.5 21.4 11.9

Source: AISD Staff Records 2004-2005

An analysis of the change in teacher employment status from 2003-2004 to 2004-2005 demonstrates that Title I schools had a higher percentage of teachers new to the district (14.8%) in 2004-2005 than did non-Title I schools (10.1%). In addition, a higher percentage of

11


teachers at non-Title I schools (78.8%) than at Title I schools (67.6%) stayed at the same school from one year to the next (Table 3).

Table 3: Percentages of 2004-2005 AISD Title I and Non-Title I School Teachers by Employment Status Compared With The Prior Year

New to AISD

Same Campus

Different Campus

Retire/Rehire

Reassigned to a School

Leave/Return

AISD Title I School Teachers (n = 3,507)

14.8 67.6 8.7 6.3 2.3 0.3

AISD Non-Title I School Teachers (n = 1,940)

10.1 78.8 5.6 3.8 1.7 0.2

All AISD School Teachers (n = 5,447)

13.1 71.6 7.6 5.4 2.0 0.3

Source: AISD Staff Records 2003-2004 and 2004-2005

Finally, teachers’ professional development obtained during the school year was examined.2 AISD records indicated that all 5,551 teachers employed in April 2005 completed professional development during the school year.

Teacher’s Opinions About Using Student Achievement Data

The National Staff Development Council (NSDC, 2001) describes critical standards for promoting effective staff development for school personnel that can influence student learning (see http://www.nsdc.org). The standards are grouped into three broad categories: context, process, and content. One example of the context standards is organization of adults into learning communities whose goals are aligned with those of the school and district. Process standards include strategies such as using disaggregated student data to determine learning priorities (data driven standard). These and other standards of effective staff development can provide a framework for how school staff approach the critical task of examining student data to guide instruction and to enhance student learning.

These standards are supported by a growing body of literature that examines key components of effective professional development for school staff and other conditions that should exist within the school to elicit both school change and student academic improvement (e.g., Anderson, Herr & Nihlen, 1994; Collins, 1997; Hord, 1997; Jaeger & Tucker, 1998). The U. S. Department of Education has launched an initiative where teachers can share their knowledge and practices for improved teacher instruction and student learning (see http://www.ed.gov/teachers/how/tools/initiative/index.html). As the federal government has implemented the No Child Left Behind Act (2001), greater emphasis has been placed on the

2 TEA requires Texas school districts receiving Title I A funds to report annually the number of teachers in the district, and of those, the number who received professional development.

12


review of student achievement data, including the examination of data disaggregated by various student groups.

To explore how AISD teachers view and use student achievement data, a survey of teachers was conducted. In AISD’s spring 2005 employee coordinated survey, a sample of teachers was asked about their opinions and behaviors related to the use of student achievement data. Of 1,246 teachers who were sent the survey by e-mail, approximately 643 (51.6%) responded to at least one of the questions and were included in the analyses. The 95% confidence interval for this sample indicates that survey results are representative of the population of AISD teachers within plus or minus 3.6 percentage points.

Teachers were asked whether they thought that they were expected by various individuals or groups, such as administrators, other teachers, and parents, to examine student achievement data. Of all respondents (n = 621), most teachers (79.7%) believed that school principals or assistant principals expected them to examine student achievement data to make instructional decisions for students. Beliefs regarding expectations from other groups, such as teachers at their schools (55.4%), school instructional or curriculum specialists (45.6%), and parents (36.2%), were less prevalent. As shown in Appendix A, the percentages of teachers selecting these options usually were slightly higher among Title I teachers than non-Title I teachers. The exception was for respondents who selected parents as a group expecting use of data, with Title I teachers selecting parents less often (32.7%) than non-Title I respondents (41.8%). Although teachers sometimes selected other district staff (e.g., curriculum staff, associate superintendent), most expectations about examining student data are focused at the local school level. This supports the concept of having a learning community of teachers with instructional leadership at the school level. Complete results for this survey question are in Appendix A.

As shown in Table 4, most AISD teachers (regardless of school type) who responded to the survey agreed (89.6%) that examining student achievement data to improve instructional decisions benefits children. Similarly, most respondents (86.9%) agreed that they felt comfortable using such data to plan and make instructional decisions. However, there were some respondents who disagreed with each of these statements or felt unsure about them, which could indicate, among other possibilities, that some staff may need further training on the use of student achievement data to guide instruction.

13


Table 4: AISD Teachers’ Opinions Regarding the Use of Student Achievement Data to Make Instructional Decisions, Spring 2005

Survey Items

% Agree or Strongly

Agree

% Disagree or

Strongly Disagree

% Not Sure

Examining student achievement data helps improve instructional decisions that benefit students.

Title I School Teachers (n = 387) 89.9 5.2 4.9 Non-Title I School Teachers (n = 244) 88.9 6.6 4.5

All School Teachers (n = 631) 89.6 5.7 4.7 I feel comfortable using student achievement data to plan and make instructional decisions.

Title I School Teachers (n = 389) 86.1 8.2 5.8 Non-Title I School Teachers (n = 240) 88.3 6.3 5.4

All School Teachers (n = 629) 86.9 7.5 5.6 Source: AISD Employee Coordinated Survey, Spring 2005

When asked how often student data were used (responses = 632), most teachers indicated that they used student data on a weekly (37.8%) or daily (26.7%) basis to guide their instructional decisions. Some respondents indicated they used such data on a monthly basis (17.2%) or occasionally during the school year (15.7%). Only 2.5% indicated that they never used student achievement data to guide their instruction. There were no distinct differences in percentages of responses to this question between Title I and non-Title I teachers.

When asked in what situations teachers examined student achievement data (respondents = 634), the most common responses teachers provided were: on their own (83.1%), during professional development (65.1%), and with other individuals such as teachers at specific grade levels (58.8%), administrators (49.4%), and parents (49.2%). Other situations in which teachers indicated that they examined data included: with other teachers in specific subject areas (42.1%), instructional or curriculum specialists (36.4%), counselors (24.1%), or campus advisory council members (5.9%). Only a few respondents stated that they never examined student achievement data (1.7%). Only small percentage-point differences in responses occurred between Title I and non-Title I school teachers. For instance, a slightly higher percentage of non-Title I teachers (85.3%) than Title I teachers (81.7%) indicated that they examined student data on their own. However, a slightly higher percentage of Title I school teachers (66.8%) than non-Title I teachers (62.0%) indicated that they examined student data during professional development. In addition, Title I teachers (61.4%) more often than non-Title I teachers (54.7%) indicated that they examined student data with other teachers at specific grade levels. Complete results for this survey item appear in Appendix A.

14


When asked about the types of student achievement data teachers used to guide their instructional decisions (responses = 632), the most commonly selected data were classroom tests (81.9%), TAKS or TAAS (75.6%), student homework (71.4%), local benchmark tests (67.2%), and student portfolio work (44.8%). Some differences in percentages of responses occurred between Title I school teachers and non-Title I school teachers. For instance, Title I teachers (69.9%) selected district-developed benchmark tests more often than did non-Title I teachers (62.9%). However, non-Title I teachers (78.2%) selected TAKS slightly more often than did Title I teachers (73.8%). Classroom tests and student homework also were selected more often by non-Title I teachers (86.4% and 74.5%, respectively) than by Title I teachers (79.2% and 69.2%, respectively). Complete results for this question appear in Appendix A.

Teachers were asked what obstacles they had experienced when trying to use student achievement data. The overwhelming majority of respondents indicated that a lack of time (79.8%) and having too much data to go through (54.4%) were the primary obstacles in using student achievement data. These findings may suggest that teachers need additional time to examine such complex student data, and/or better tools to identify and summarize useful information from the available data.

Teachers were asked about the extent to which they had received training or professional development on how to examine and use student achievement data. Based on survey responses, most AISD teachers reported having received some type of professional development during the past two years on how to examine and use student achievement data. As shown in Table 5, most respondents indicated that they had had such training on one to five occasions. Although about 14.1% reported never having had such training, about the same percentage (14.7%) indicated that they had had more than six such training sessions. Title I teachers (15.1%) more often indicated that they had not had such training, compared to non-Title I teachers (12.2%). However, a larger percentage of Title I teachers (18.1%) than non-Title I teachers (9.4%) indicated that they had completed six or more such training sessions.

Table 5: Percentages of AISD Teachers’ Responses About Frequency of Recent Professional Development on Student Data, Spring 2005

Indicate how often in the past two years you have had professional development or training in how to examine and use student achievement data for students.

Never Once or Twice

Three to Five

Times

Six or More Times

Title I School Teachers (n = 391) 15.1 33.8 33.0 18.1 Non-Title I School Teachers (n = 245) 12.2 39.2 39.2 9.4 All School Teachers (n = 636) 14.1 35.8 35.3 14.7

Source: AISD Employee Coordinated Survey, Spring 2005

15


When teachers were asked if they needed any training on how to access, interpret, or use student achievement data, most respondents disagreed (65% or more). However, about one-third of teachers responded that they could benefit from such training. The need for training on how to use student achievement data to guide instruction was more prevalent among Title I respondents (42.8%) than non-Title I respondents (28.6%). Among the Title I respondents indicating that they needed further training, the need was expressed most often among middle (54.2%) and high school (50.0%) teachers. Among the non-Title I teachers needing more training, the need was expressed most often among elementary teachers (32.0%). Thus, most AISD teachers understand the importance of examining and using student achievement data, but there are still quite a few who express the need for more training in this area. Other results from this survey, such as the expectations, circumstances, and data sources used for examining student achievement data, provide areas for further investigation. For example, future surveys could examine the possibility that those who use data are more likely to value training.

Paraprofessionals

In NCLB, all paraprofessionals providing instructional support in schools must be highly qualified by the end of 2005-2006. TEA’s reporting requirements for Texas school districts receiving Title I funds include having documentation of the numbers of paraprofessional staff employed at Title I schools who provide instructional or non-instructional support. Paraprofessionals who provide instructional support in core academic subject areas (e.g., reading, mathematics, science, social studies) are defined by TEA as those who provide one-on-one tutoring, classroom management assistance, instructional assistance in a computer laboratory, or similar instructional support in a library or media center. For 2004-2005, AISD staff in this group included computer laboratory assistants, teacher assistants, and library assistants. TEA requires districts to report the educational background of these individuals. Table 6 provides a summary of the educational background of AISD Title I schools’ paraprofessionals with instructional duties during 2004-2005. All 463 passed a rigorous state or local assessment to demonstrate knowledge and skills for assisting instruction. Almost one-third had at least an associate’s degree, and about a tenth had completed at least two years of study in higher education. Thus, AISD paraprofessionals with instructional support duties have met NCLB requirements successfully.

16


Table 6: Numbers and Percentages of AISD Title I Schools’ Paraprofessional Staff with Instructional Duties by Educational Attainment, 2004-2005

Number Percentage Have Completed an Associate’s Degree or Higher 150 32.4% Have Completed Two Years of Study in Higher Education 50 10.8% Have Passed a Rigorous State or Local Assessment 463 100.0% Source: AISD Human Resource Records, 2004-2005

Other Title I paraprofessionals employed in the district did not have instructional support duties but provided support to students and staff at schools. During 2004-2005, AISD employed 880 of these individuals. The job categories of these paraprofessionals included accounting or data clerks, food service staff, secretaries, parent support specialists, childcare assistants, and various other staff.

17


STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND ACADEMIC PROGRESS

TAKS

In Texas public schools, students may be promoted only on the basis of academic achievement or demonstrated proficiency in subject matters for each grade level (Texas Education Code, Title 2, Chapter 28, Section 28.021). Texas public schools have an academic assessment system in place to comply with this law. In 1999, Texas Senate Bill 103 authorized the state’s student academic assessment system, the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS), as a replacement to the previous testing system (Texas Assessment of Academic Skills or TAAS). The tests are based on the state-mandated curriculum, the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS). TAKS tests are administered to Texas public school students in grades 3 through 11 in the following subject areas: reading (grades 3-9), English language arts (grades 10 and 11), writing (grades 4 and 7), mathematics (grades 3-11), science (grades 5, 10 and 11), and social studies (grades 8, 10 and 11). When appropriate, TAKS tests are provided in Spanish to students in grades three through six. In 1999, Texas Senate Bill 4 was signed into law and tied passing TAKS to grade-level promotion in the following circumstances:

• Third graders must pass TAKS reading for promotion to grade four. • Fifth graders must pass TAKS reading and mathematics for promotion to grade six. • Beginning in 2008, eighth graders will have to pass TAKS reading and mathematics

to be promoted to grade nine. These state promotion requirements are part of the state’s Student Success Initiative

(SSI). The initiative requires school districts to provide multiple opportunities for students in these grade levels to take the TAKS (i.e., in February, April, May, and/or June 2005, depending upon grade level and subject area). In addition, those students who fail any of the early test administrations must be given immediate intervention to prepare them for the next testing opportunity. If a student fails after the second test administration, a grade placement committee must be formed to review all relevant student academic information and to make the decision regarding whether to retain or to promote the student. For state accountability purposes, only the first two administrations of the reading or mathematics assessments count toward the schools’ and district’s TAKS passing rates. The data represent the non-mobile student population of AISD students who took the test. The data that follow summarize some of the TAKS 2005 results from the February and April 2005 administrations for AISD students who were part of the Fall 2004 PEIMS submission, focusing on all students and student groups across the district and at Title I schools and non-Title I schools. All TAKS data presented in this report are from the test contractor’s records provided to TEA and AISD.

18


TAKS 2005

Figure 6 summarizes the percentages of AISD students at Title I schools, non-Title I schools, and all schools who met the TAKS 2005 passing standards for each subject. District student passing rates were greatest in TAKS reading, writing, and social studies, while the lowest passing rates were in mathematics and science. The data also show that students at non-Title I schools passed at higher rates in each subject tested than did students at Title I schools. The largest differences in percentages passing between the Title I schools group and the non-Title I schools group appeared in mathematics (22.5 percentage points) and science (29.3 percentage points), while the smallest difference was in writing (11.3 percentage points). Appendix B provides more TAKS data summaries, including results by grade level for each subject tested, and the cumulative results for grade 3 and 5 reading and mathematics.

Figure 6: Percentages of AISD Students Meeting TAKS 2005 Passing Standards by Subject for Title I Schools, Non-Title I Schools, and All Schools

90.2 94.781.7 79.9

92.6

50.6

83.472.6 76.2

59.2

87.379.9 84.1

64.768.4

0

20

40

60

80

100

TAKS Reading/ ELA

TAKS Writing TAKSMathematics

TAKS Science TAKS SocialStudies

Perc

enta

ge


Source: AISD TAKS Records as of July 2005, Management Information Systems

Figures 7 through 11 summarize percentages of AISD students meeting the 2005 TAKS

passing standards in each subject by student group, with comparisons made among students at Title I schools, non-Title I schools, and all schools. In most instances, the Title I student groups met the passing standards less often than did the non-Title I student groups. The lowest passing rates occurred in science across all student groups. In most cases, White students, whether from Title I schools or non-Title I schools, had the greatest percentages meeting passing standards. Students who were limited English proficient (LEP) or receiving special education services typically met the passing standards in each subject less often. However, in

19


reading and writing, where passing rates were greater in general, the LEP student passing rates were similar at Title I schools and non-Title I schools.

Figure 7: Percentages of AISD Students Meeting TAKS 2005 Passing Standards in Reading or English Language Arts by Student Groups for Title I Schools, Non-Title I Schools,

and All Schools

75.982.7

94.8

76.3

54.8

70.9

51.7

68.169.268.4

53.0

91.7

69.6 71.960.7

53.0

69.0

93.9

0

20

40

60

80

100

African American Hispanic White EconomicallyDisadvantaged

Limited EnglishProficient

Special Education

Perc

enta

ge



20


Figure 8: Percentages of AISD Students Meeting TAKS 2005 Passing Standards in Writing by Student Groups for Title I Schools, Non-Title I Schools, and All Schools

87.3 89.984.9

71.479.581.4

68.2

80.881.5

71.2

94.9 97.1

82.2 82.5

71.871.3

80.9

96.5

0

20

40

60

80

100



Special Education

Perc

enta

ge



Figure 9: Percentages of AISD Students Meeting TAKS 2005 Passing Standards in Mathematics by Student Groups for Title I Schools, Non-Title I Schools,

and All Schools

55.3

65.8

90.4

56.550.4

57.9

38.747.9

56.3 54.747.9

82.6

48.457.8

48.8 47.754.3

88.5

0

20

40

60

80

100



Special Education

Perc

enta

ge



21


Figure 10: Percentages of AISD Students Meeting TAKS 2005 Passing Standards in Science by Student Groups for Title I Schools, Non-Title I Schools, and All Schools

54.862.8

88.9

55.1

33.8

51.6

27.2

42.944.440.5

24.3

84.9

43.549.4

39.9

24.8

44.8

88.0

0

20

40

60

80

100



Special Education

Perc

enta

ge



Figure 11: Percentages of AISD Students Meeting TAKS 2005 Passing Standards in Social Studies by Student Groups for Title I Schools, Non-Title I Schools, and All Schools

83.5 86.180.0

51.4

72.1

51.0

70.271.673.5

41.7

93.6 96.4

75.5 75.7

61.8

42.7

72.1

95.8

0

20

40

60

80

100



Special Education

Perc

enta

ge



22


TAKS Progress

The State Board of Education established Panel Recommended (PR) passing standards for TAKS to be phased in over several years. The 2005 TAKS assessments were scored using the more rigorous PR passing standards in all TAKS subject areas for most students (except at grade 11), requiring a student to achieve a minimum scaled score of 2100 to meet the passing standard. A comparison of the 2004 TAKS results to 2005 TAKS results using the PR standard for both years reveals percentage point gains for students at all schools, Title I schools, and non-Title I schools in all subjects. The smallest gains were in writing, while the greatest gains were in science. The two subject areas with the least percentages of students meeting the panel recommended passing standard were mathematics and science. In most cases, percentage point gains between 2004 and 2005 were greater among students at Title I schools than at non-Title I schools. Therefore, although students at Title I schools continue to have lower passing rates than students at non-Title I schools, progress is being made in narrowing the achievement gap between those student groups.

23


Table 7: Percentages of AISD Students Meeting TAKS Panel Recommended Passing Standards by Subject for Title I Schools, Non-Title I Schools, and

All Schools, 2004 and 2005

TAKS Subject by School Group Percentages Passing TAKS 2004

(Adjusted to PR)

Percentages Passing TAKS 2005 (At PR)

Percentage Point Change From 2004 to 2005

Reading or English Language Arts Title I Schools 63.2% 72.6% 9.4

Non-Title I Schools 85.4% 90.2% 4.8 All Schools 73.9% 79.9% 6.0

Writing Title I Schools 81.5% 83.4% 1.9


Mathematics Title I Schools 52.2% 59.2% 7.0


Science Title I Schools 34.1% 50.6% 16.5


Social Studies Title I Schools 67.1% 76.2% 9.1


Source: AISD TAKS Records as of July 2005, Department of Program Evaluation Note. PR is Texas State Board of Educator’s Panel Recommended Passing Standard for TAKS. The data in this table summarize all students (non-mobile subset) with a scored test across all administrations and a scale score greater than or equal to 2100. The PR does not apply to grade 11.

SDAA II

The State Developed Alternative Assessment II (SDAA II) is a state-mandated academic assessment for students in Texas school districts who receive special education support and services, are enrolled in grades three through ten, and are receiving instruction in the state-mandated curriculum (TEKS), but for whom the TAKS is not an appropriate measure of achievement. The student’s Admission, Review, and Dismissal (ARD) committee determines whether the SDAA II or another locally developed assessment (LDAA) is appropriate for testing the student. SDAA II is given in reading or English language arts,

24


mathematics, and writing, and results are reported as the number and percentage of students meeting ARD expectations. The SDAA program was first developed and administered in 2001, and the results are included in AEIS. Major revisions were made to SDAA for the 2004-2005 year to provide better alignment with TAKS, to extend grade levels tested, and to apply new accountability standards to results. The revised assessment was renamed SDAA II. Because the SDAA II is considerably different from its predecessor, SDAA, the results are not comparable from year to year.

Figures 12 through 14 show the percentages of AISD students (for all tested and for each student group) who met ARD expectations in each subject tested for the 2005 SDAA II, summarized by Title I schools, non-Title I schools, and all schools. With only a few exceptions, there were minimal differences between Title I and non-Title I groups in the percentages of students meeting ARD expectations for these assessments. In Figure 12, the percentages of non-Title I students meeting ARD expectations in reading or English language arts were slightly greater than for Title I students in each student group, with the exceptions of Hispanic students and economically disadvantaged students, where the percentages were very similar. As shown in Figure 13, more differences between Title I and non-Title I groups can be seen in the writing assessment, with the biggest percentage point difference found between White students at Title I schools (50%) and non-Title I schools (71.3%). In Figure 14, there were minimal differences in percentages of students meeting ARD expectations for mathematics by groups at Title I and non-Title I schools.

25


Figure 12: Percentages of AISD Students Meeting ARD Expectations for SDAA II Reading or English Language Arts 2005 by All Students and Student Groups for Title I Schools,

Non-Title I Schools, and All Schools

80.2 80.085.9

75.7 77.475.2 79.172.7 75.275.8 75.5

79.476.5 73.7 77.675.382.9

76.0

0

20

40

60

80

100

All AfricanAmerican

Hispanic White EconomicDisadvantage

LimitedEnglish

Proficient

Perc

enta

ge


Source: AISD SDAA II Records as of July 2005, Management Information Systems

Figure 13: Percentages of AISD Students Meeting ARD Expectations for SDAA II Writing 2005 by All Students and Student Groups for Title I Schools, Non-Title I Schools,

and All Schools

59.362.153.4 56.9

71.3

58.752.950.051.8

46.252.254.954.9

47.5

58.953.5

62.955.7

0

20

40

60

80

100

All AfricanAmerican


LimitedEnglish

Proficient

Perc

enta

ge



26


Figure 14: Percentages of AISD Students Meeting ARD Expectations for SDAA II Mathematics 2005 by All Students and Student Groups for Title I Schools,

Non-Title I Schools, and All Schools

74.8 71.1 70.480.2

73.2 75.775.3 74.970.772.6 72.973.173.1 70.975.173.0

78.072.6

0

20

40

60

80

100

All AfricanAmerican


LimitedEnglish

Proficient

Perc

enta

ge



27


FEDERAL AND STATE ACCOUNTABILITY

ADEQUATE YEARLY PROGRESS

Federal NCLB requirements include an accountability provision that all schools and school districts must be evaluated annually for adequate yearly progress (AYP) using a specific set of standards and student measures. For the complete 2005 AYP manual for Texas, see the document on the TEA website at http://www.tea.state.tx.us/ayp/2005/guide.pdf. All students must be tested in reading or language arts and mathematics, and results must be included in the AYP calculation. TAKS, SDAA II, locally-determined alternate assessments (LDAA), Reading Proficiency Test in English (RPTE), and linguistically accommodated mathematics testing (LAT) may be used. Other data examined in the AYP calculations include high school graduation rates and elementary and middle school attendance rates. Academic assessment results are examined for all students and for each of the following student groups: African American, Hispanic, White, economically disadvantaged, special education, and limited English proficient. In addition, graduation and attendance rates are examined for all students. Table 8 provides a summary count of AISD Title I and non-Title I schools by AYP status for 2004 and 2005. Note that 2005 ratings are preliminary until TEA confirms final ratings by December 2005. The majority of AISD schools received an AYP status of Met AYP during 2004 and 2005. However, more Title I schools than non-Title I schools received a Missed AYP rating. Of those that missed AYP in 2005, all were either middle or high schools, and all missed due to academic performance in reading and/or mathematics. Five of these campuses will be in the second stage of Title I improvement because they did not meet AYP requirements for three consecutive years, and one campus will be in stage one of Title I improvement because it did not meet AYP requirements for two consecutive years. All of these schools must offer their students the choice to enroll at certain other schools in AISD, while the five second-year stage schools also must offer their economically disadvantaged students access to supplementary educational services.

Table 8: Summary Counts of Preliminary Federal Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Ratings for AISD Title I and Non-Title I Schools in 2004 and 2005

Met AYP Missed AYP Not Rated Total Title I Schools

2004 60 9 0 69 2005 55 14 0 69

Non-Title I Schools 2004 36 1 5 42 2005 34 3 5 42

Source: TEA AISD Records, 2004, 2005 Note. Final ratings will be announced by TEA later in 2005.

28


STATE ACCOUNTABILITY RATINGS

In 1993, the Texas Legislature enacted statutes that mandated the creation of a public school accountability system to rate schools and districts annually. The current state system is different from the federal AYP rating system. The state accountability system includes an annual examination of basic student indicators such as academic performance on TAKS (grades 3-11) and SDAA II (grades 3-8), dropout rates (grades 7 and 8), and completion rates (grades 9-12). However, the AYP rating system also examines other assessments (RPTE, LDAA, LAT), elementary and middle school attendance, and high school graduation rates, but it does not include dropout rates. With only a few exceptions, the state accountability system requires that accountability subset data be examined for all students and for the following student groups: White, Hispanic, African American, and economically disadvantaged. However, the AYP rating system also examines students who are LEP or receiving special education services. The state ratings that can be given to schools and districts are Exemplary, Recognized, Academically Acceptable, and Academically Unacceptable (and Not Rated). The state accountability system examines all state-tested subject areas (reading, English language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies) while the AYP system only examines reading/language arts and mathematics. The performance (passing) standards used for the state assessments vary between the state accountability rating system and the AYP system. In the state accountability system, the 2005 passing rate standards for the Academically Acceptable rating are as follows: science 25%, mathematics 35%, and reading, language arts and writing 50%. However, in the AYP system, the 2005 standards for the Met AYP rating are: reading and language arts 53%, and mathematics 42%. An alternative state accountability system also exists for certain types of public schools. For the complete 2005 state accountability manual for Texas, see it online at http://www.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/account/2005/manual/.

As shown in Table 9, in 2004 and 2005, AISD non-Title I schools more often received state ratings of Exemplary and Recognized, while AISD Title I schools more often received ratings of Academically Acceptable. The number of Academically Unacceptable ratings (5) remained the same for Title I schools in 2004 and 2005, while the number of such ratings decreased from one to zero for non-Title I schools during the same period. Each school with an Academically Unacceptable rating has developed and begun implementation of an overall academic improvement plan for the coming year. For those schools that are in their second consecutive year with an Academically Unacceptable rating, special campus intervention teams must be formed to review the school’s status and recommend whether or not the school should be reconstituted in some way or be closed. Three AISD schools (all Title I) are in their second consecutive year with an Academically Unacceptable rating.

29


Table 9: Summary Counts of State Accountability Ratings in AISD by Title I and Non-Title I Schools for 2004 and 2005

Exemplary

Recognized

AcademicallyAcceptable

Academically Unacceptable

Not Rated

Total

Title I Schools 2004 0 2 62 5 0 69 2005 0 3 60 5 0 68

Non- Title I Schools

2004 7 14 12 1 8 42 2005* 4 14 16 0 6 40

Source: TEA State Accountability Summary Reports for 2004 and 2005 Note. * The 2005 counts include three schools rated in the Alternative Education rating system.

Because the two different accountability rating systems are based on different sets of indicators with varying performance standards, there are some cases where schools’ ratings seem to conflict. For instance, in 2004, six AISD high schools, one middle school and one elementary school received an Academically Acceptable state rating while also receiving a federal Missed AYP rating. In 2005, six high schools and seven middle schools had Missed AYP but received an Academically Acceptable state rating. Also in 2005, one elementary school received the state Academically Unacceptable rating but also received the federal Met AYP rating. In most cases, when schools had missed the 2005 federal AYP rating, it was due to not meeting the higher performance standard set for TAKS reading and mathematics on state-mandated tests. When the schools received the 2005 state accountability Academically Unacceptable rating, it was due to some combination of not meeting performance standards set for TAKS science, social studies, or dropout rates. For a comparison between the NCLB AYP and Texas state accountability systems, see Appendix C.

The Texas Education Code authorizes the state’s Public Education Grant (PEG) Program. This program affects Texas public schools that have 50% or more students who did not pass TAAS or TAKS in any two of the preceding three years or were rated Low Performing in 2002 or Academically Unacceptable in 2004 (according to the state accountability system). As required by this law, any school that meets this condition must notify parents of students enrolled at these schools that they may apply to attend another school within their district or any other Texas school district in 2005-2006. The receiving school district may accept or reject the application. AISD already offers student transfers between schools, so the PEG program targets those students who would like to transfer out of AISD. For the 2005-2006 school year, AISD has 25 Title I schools required by the PEG Program to offer such transfers to their students.

30


SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

SUMMARY

Program Funds and Students Served

For 2004-2005, AISD received $22,093,393 in federal Title I Part A program funds to support 69 public schools with high concentrations of low income children. The funds are used to help students acquire knowledge and skills described in the state academic content standards and meet state academic performance standards. The majority of funds (83.3%) was spent at the schools, mostly for payroll and classroom instruction. Other schools within the AISD boundaries also participated in the Title I program, including five private schools and three facilities for neglected youth.

Over the past five years, there has been a gradual growth in the number and percentage of AISD students served at Title I schools. In Fall 2000, there were 35,641 (45.8%) students attending AISD Title I schools (based on AISD PEIMS submission records). By Fall 2004, the number of Title I school students had grown to 49,730, representing 62.2% of the total AISD student population. Students attending Title I schools in 2004-2005 were more likely to be economically disadvantaged (80.4%), at risk (61.4%), and limited English proficient (33.1%), compared to students in non-Title I schools. Economic disadvantage is the primary qualifier for a school’s Title I designation.

Student Academic Performance

AISD student TAKS performance in 2004-2005 was stronger in some subject areas than in others. Overall, district student passing rates on TAKS (using the accountability subset of students) were greatest in reading and English language arts (79.9%), writing (87.3%), and social studies (84.1%), while district students passed less often in mathematics (68.4%) and science (64.7%). The percentages of students meeting TAKS passing standards across the district were least at grades six through ten in mathematics and at grade ten in science. A performance difference remained between students at Title I schools and non-Title I schools in all subjects tested, with relatively fewer students meeting TAKS passing standards in Title I than non-Title I schools. The greatest difference was in science, with 50.6% of Title I students and 79.9% of non-Title I students meeting passing standards. An analysis of district student TAKS performance by state accountability student groups indicated that regardless of whether students were at Title I or non-Title I schools, White students tended to pass all TAKS subject tests at higher rates than students who were economically disadvantaged, limited English

31


proficient, receiving special education services, African American, or Hispanic.3 However, comparing 2004 to 2005, AISD students have shown progress in meeting TAKS passing standards. A recalculation of 2004 TAKS data using the State Board of Education’s Panel Recommended passing standard showed growth from 2004 to 2005 in the percentage of students meeting TAKS passing standards in all subjects tested, regardless of whether students were at Title I schools or non-Title I schools. Although relatively fewer students met 2005 TAKS science passing standards in Title I than non-Title I schools, the greatest percentage point gain from 2004 to 2005 occurred for both groups in science (16.5 percentage point gain at Title I schools, 13.0 percentage point gain at non-Title I schools).

Other student academic performance data for AISD students receiving special education services were analyzed for 2004-2005. The State Developed Alternative Assessment II (SDAA II), designed for students receiving special education services and for whom the TAKS is not an appropriate assessment, showed that the percentages of district students meeting ARD committees’ expectations were greatest in reading (76.5%) and mathematics (73.1%) and least in writing (54.9%). In most instances, there were only small percentage point differences between Title I schools and non-Title I schools in the percentage of students meeting the ARD committees’ expectations.

Teachers and Paraprofessional Staff

All AISD teachers had completed high quality professional development during 2004-2005. By the end of the 2004-2005 school year, most (97.5%) AISD teachers were identified as being highly qualified in the core area in which they taught. NCLB requires that all public school teachers teaching core subject areas in the classroom must be highly qualified (certified) by the end of the 2005-2006 school year. However, there were slightly more than 100 AISD teachers at the end of the 2004-2005 school year that had not become highly qualified, and most of these were at Title I schools. AISD has developed a plan to ensure that all teachers will become certified and highly qualified by May 2006. AISD already has met the federal requirement that all of its paraprofessionals with instructional duties be highly qualified, through state certification and college-level education.

Some differences in experience and employment status remain between teachers at AISD Title I schools and non-Title I schools. Based on district records of AISD teachers’ years of teaching experience, teachers in non-Title I schools were more experienced than their peers in Title I schools. Examining the range of years of teaching experience, a lesser percentage of Title I school teachers than non-Title I school teachers had 11 or more years of

3 White students may be included in other accountability student groups such as economically disadvantaged, limited English proficient, and special education.

32


teaching experience. Lastly, a review of teacher employment status from 2003-2004 to 2004-2005 showed that Title I school teachers more often were new teachers in 2004-2005 or had been at a different school the prior year than was the case for non-Title I school teachers.

The use of student achievement data to guide instruction has been touted as an important tool in school improvement. When a sample of AISD teachers was surveyed about the use of student achievement data to guide instruction, most respondents agreed that examination of student achievement data was useful in guiding classroom instruction. Furthermore, most respondents indicated that they were comfortable examining such data. Most respondents reported examining data at the school building level, either on their own, during professional development, or with their colleagues. Most indicated that they examined a variety of student data, including classroom and state assessments and homework. Most respondents also indicated that they had received some type of training in the past two years in how to examine student achievement data. About one-third of respondents indicated that they could benefit from further training, and this response was more prevalent among the Title I school teachers responding (especially at the middle and high school levels).

State Accountability and Federal AYP Ratings

State accountability ratings and federal AYP (adequate yearly progress) ratings for 2004-2005 were issued on a preliminary basis by the Texas Education Agency to Texas public schools in August 2005. These district and school ratings are determined annually by an analysis of a specific combination of certain basic student indicators (e.g., academic performance on TAKS, SDAA; dropout rate, completion rate; attendance) that vary across the two systems. These ratings have specific consequences for schools and school districts. For 2004-2005 preliminary results, AISD had 89 schools that met AYP and 17 schools that missed AYP (5 schools were not rated). The majority of schools that missed AYP (14) were Title I schools. In addition, AISD school counts by state accountability ratings were as follows: Exemplary rating (the highest possible) 4; Recognized 17; Academically Acceptable 76; and Academically Unacceptable 5 (3 schools rated in the alternative education accountability system received Academically Acceptable rating, and 6 schools were not rated). All five schools that received an Academically Unacceptable rating were Title I schools. In some cases, a school’s AYP rating and its state accountability rating did not seem aligned. For instance, in 2005, six AISD high schools and seven middle schools received an Academically Acceptable state accountability rating while receiving a Missed AYP federal rating. However, since the two rating systems use a different combination of base indicators with varying performance standards, there are cases when ratings differ.

33


There are next steps for the schools with either a Missed AYP rating or an Academically Unacceptable rating. Although TEA announced final state accountability ratings in October 2005, districts are still waiting for TEA to announce final federal AYP ratings before the end of 2005. In the meantime, the staff at those schools that Missed AYP already are planning how the entire school program will be improved over the next two years. For some schools, poor federal ratings were received for consecutive years. These schools are offering choice options to their current students so that they may choose to transfer to other schools in the district. Furthermore, five of these schools are offering their economically disadvantaged students access to supplemental academic support services outside of the regular school day.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The Title I program in AISD provides key supplemental support to the district’s strategies for improving the academic performance of its students. However, evidence suggests that there is room for ongoing improvement in AISD in the following areas:

• The district must reach the NCLB goal of having all teachers highly qualified by the end of 2005-2006. The district must provide adequate avenues for teachers to become highly qualified (e.g., pay for certification, high quality training, etc.). The district must ensure that only certified teachers are hired. AISD already has plans in place to ensure that these activities occur.

• AISD must continue to focus accelerated instruction and funding upon those academic subject areas, schools, and students who need it the most – e.g. science; mathematics; Title I schools; middle school grades; and students who are economically disadvantaged, African American, Hispanic, limited English proficient, or receiving special education services.

• In the area of budget allocation and spending, the district must continue to encourage the targeting of funds to classrooms and to interventions for struggling students. Where effective instructional methods and curricula are used, Title I funds can be combined with other district funds (local, state, federal) to provide enhanced support for struggling learners.

• AISD staff must identify struggling students accurately and frequently during the school year, and staff must ensure that these students get the intervention and support that they need immediately upon identification. These students must continue to receive support as long as they need it throughout the year.

• AISD staff must continue to examine key characteristics of successful schools to glean those practices that can be generalized to AISD schools. What are the factors

34


that help successful schools that are similar to ours maintain a good track record? What factors raise or maintain high levels of student performance? In particular, what are the specific instructional practices and academic support that are used in mathematics and science at these successful schools?

35


36


APPENDICES

37


APPENDIX A: AISD TEACHERS’ RESPONSES TO SURVEY QUESTIONS ON USE OF STUDENT ACADEMIC DATA, SPRING 2005

Percentages of AISD Teachers’ Responses About Who Expects Them to Examine Student Achievement Data, Spring 2005

I am expected to examine student achievement data to make instructional decisions for students by the following individuals or groups:

Percentage of Title I Teachers (n = 382)

Percentage of Non-Title I

Teachers (n = 239)

Percentage of All

Teachers (n = 621)

Campus principals and/or assistant principals 80.9 77.8 79.7 Teachers at my school 55.8 54.8 55.4 Campus instructional/curriculum specialists 60.5 21.8 45.6 Parents 32.7 41.8 36.2 Central office curriculum staff 35.3 32.2 34.1 Superintendent 23.6 20.1 22.2 Central office associate superintendents 23.3 17.9 21.3 Counselors at my school 21.5 21.8 21.6 Teachers from other schools 10.5 6.3 8.9 I am not expected to examine student achievement data 9.7 8.8 9.5 Source: AISD Employee Coordinated Survey, Spring 2005

Percentages of AISD Teacher Respondents Indicating in What Situations They Examine Student Achievement Data, Spring 2005

I examine student achievement data on students at my school in the following ways:


Percentage of Non-Title I Teachers (n = 245)

Percentage of All

Teachers (n = 634)

On My Own 81.7 85.3 83.1 During Professional Development 66.8 62.0 65.1 With Teachers at Specific Grade Levels 61.4 54.7 58.8 With Campus Administrators 52.2 44.9 49.4 With Students’ Parents or Family Members 50.4 47.3 49.2 With Teachers in Specific Subject Areas 38.8 47.3 42.1 With Instructional or Curriculum Specialists 51.2 13.1 36.4 With Counselors 21.3 28.6 24.1 With Campus Advisory Council Members 6.9 4.5 5.9 Never Examine Student Achievement Data 2.3 0.8 1.7 Source: AISD Employee Coordinated Survey, Spring 2005

38


Percentages of AISD Teacher Respondents Indicating the Types of Student Achievement Data They Use to Guide Their Instruction, Spring 2005

I examine the following types of student achievement data for students at my school:



Teachers (n = 243)

Percentage of All

Teachers (n = 632)

Classroom Tests 79.2 86.4 81.9 TAKS or TAAS 73.8 78.2 75.6 Homework 69.2 74.5 71.4 Benchmark Tests 69.9 62.9 67.2 Student Portfolio Work 42.9 47.3 44.8 TPRI, Tejas LEE, DRA 32.9 21.8 28.6 SDAA 29.8 22.6 27.1 RPTE 20.6 5.3 14.7 Other Student Assessments (e.g. PPVT, ITBS) 22.6 21.4 22.2 Do Not Look at These Data 2.1 1.6 1.9 Source: AISD Employee Coordinated Survey, Spring 2005 Note. TAKS – Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills; TAAS – Texas Assessment of Academic Skills; TPRI – Texas Primary Reading Inventory; Tejas LEE – Spanish TPRI; DRA – Developmental Reading Assessment; SDAA – State Developed Alternative Assessment (for special education students who do not take TAKS); RPTE – Reading Proficiency Test in English; PPVT – Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test; ITBS – Iowa Test of Basic Skills.

Percentages of AISD Teacher Respondents Indicating the Obstacles They Face When Using Student Achievement Data, Spring 2005

Select any of the following obstacles that you may have experienced when trying to use student achievement data:



Teachers (n = 218)

Percentage of All

Teachers (n = 555)

Lack of time 79.2 80.3 79.8 Too much data to go through 55.8 51.8 54.4 Login problems on computer-based data systems

24.6 22.0 23.6

Difficulty incorporating student achievement data results into instructional planning

21.4 22.0 21.8

Computer access is difficult 20.8 18.8 20.0 Computer equipment or software has not worked

16.9 19.3 17.8

Source: AISD Employee Coordinated Survey, Spring 2005

39


APPENDIX B: AISD STUDENTS’ TAKS 2005 PERFORMANCE BY GRADE AND SUBJECT FOR TITLE I SCHOOLS, NON-TITLE I SCHOOLS, AND ALL SCHOOLS

Percentages of AISD Students Meeting TAKS 2005 Reading and English Language Arts Passing Standards by Grade for Title I Schools, Non-Title I Schools, and All Schools

91.0 97.0 92.088.0 90.0 90.0

76.0

92.0

82.0

61.068.068.0

72.069.0

87.0

65.0

76.0

99.090.9

76.7 76.2 79.3

68.9

87.8

73.379.8

83.9

0

20

40

60

80

100

Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade 9 Grade 10 Grade 11

Perc

enta

ge



Percentages of AISD Students Meeting TAKS 2005 Writing Passing Standards by Grade for Title I Schools, Non-Title I Schools, and All Schools

88.078.0

96.0 93.090.383.8

0

20

40

60

80

100

Grade 4 Grade 7

Perc

enta

ge



40


Percentages of AISD Students Meeting TAKS 2005 Mathematics Passing Standards by Grade for Title I Schools, Non-Title I Schools, and All Schools

92.0 91.0 97.0

83.077.0

73.0 70.0 70.0

89.0

66.0

43.040.045.0

58.0

69.070.0

48.0

81.077.2 76.1

55.1 55.9 57.7

78.9

58.567.5

86.2

0

20

40

60

80

100

Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade 9 Grade 10 Grade 11

Perc

enta

ge



Percentages of AISD Students Meeting TAKS 2005 Science Passing Standards by Grade for Title I Schools, Non-Title I Schools, and All Schools

46.041.0

82.0

70.0

89.0

59.3 56.9

69.080.1

0

20

40

60

80

100

Grade 5 Grade 10 Grade 11

Perc

enta

ge



41


Percentages of AISD Students Meeting TAKS 2005 Social Studies Passing Standards by Grade for Title I Schools, Non-Title I Schools, and All Schools

96.0

73.073.0

86.091.0 90.079.3 82.6

91.7

0

20

40

60

80

100

Grade 8 Grade 10 Grade 11

Perc

enta

ge



Percentages of AISD Students in Grades 3 and 5 Meeting TAKS 2005 Passing Standards for Reading and Mathematics Across Administration Dates

76.6 75.8

34.9

90.883.7 85.7

72.1

84.3

49.144.3 43.239.6

33.5

0

20

40

60

80

100

Grade 3 Reading Grade 5 Reading Grade 3 Math Grade 5 Math

Perc

enta

ge

Feb-05 Apr-05 May-05 Jun-05 Cumulative

Source: AISD TAKS 2005 District Summary Reports Provided by Pearson Measurement Note. Grade 3 and 5 TAKS Reading were administered in February, April, and June 2005. Grade 3 TAKS Math was administered only in April 2005. Grade 5 TAKS Math was administered in April 2005 with retests in May and June 2005.

42


APPENDIX C: KEY DIFFERENCES BETWEEN NCLB AYP AND TEXAS STATE ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEMS

Presented to the AISD Board of Trustees on October 10, 2005 AREA 2005 NCLB AYP Accountability

Standards 2005 State Accountability Standards

Basis for Accountability Rating

Test Performance –{5% cap (moving to 3% in 2006) related to number of proficient or advanced scores on alternative assessments} Test Participation Rate of 95% at

campus/district Graduation Rates of 70% (high

schools) Attendance Rates of 90%

(elementary/middle schools)

Test Performance Dropout Rates of 1% (grades 7-8, all

groups) Completion Rates of 75% (grades 9-12,

all groups) Annual Underreports (grades 7 –12) 100

maximum and no more than 5% underreported PID error rate – not used for ratings but

will drive special investigations Test participation rate – drives

investigations Ratings Categories

Meets AYP Missed AYP (reason) Year X School Improvement (if

campus/district does not meet AYP two or more consecutive years on the same measure)

Exemplary (Districts must have no Unacceptable campuses) Recognized Academically Acceptable AE: Academically Acceptable (for

registered and validated alternative education campuses) Academically Unacceptable (based on

single year’s performance) Assessments TAKS

SDAA II RPTE LDAA Linguistically Accommodated Test

{LAT}(for LEP students who have been in US for 1-3 years, exempted from TAKS Math)

TAKS SDAA II, all tests taken

Passing Standard

53 % Reading/English Language Arts* 42 % Mathematics* Gains analyses may be used to meet

AYP No exceptions to standards

*AYP targets are set to increase through 2013-14, with the goal being that all students and student groups are at 100% passing by that time.

50% Reading/English Language Arts, Writing, Social Studies* 35% Mathematics* 25% Science* Gains analyses (“Required

Improvement”) Exceptions applied in very limited

circumstances * For 2006, moving to 60% for Reading/ELA,

Writing, Social Studies; 40% for Mathematics; and 35% for Science

43


AREA 2005 NCLB AYP Accountability

Standards 2005 State Accountability Standards

Subjects Reading/English Language Arts (grades 3-8 and 10*)

Mathematics (grades 3-8 and 10) Science in 2007-08

*Discussion at TEA of moving from grade 10 to 11

Reading (grades 3-9) English Language Arts (grades 10-11) Mathematics (grades 3-11) Writing (grades 4 and 7) Social Studies (grades 8, 10 and 11) Science (grades 5, 10, and 11, with 8th

added in 2006) Student Groups

All African American Hispanic White Economically Disadvantaged Limited English Proficient Special Education

All African American Hispanic White Economically Disadvantaged

Non-mobile Subset

District: English and Spanish takers who were enrolled in the district on the fall “snapshot” date Campus: English and Spanish

takers who were enrolled in the school on the fall “snapshot” date

District: English and Spanish takers who were enrolled in the district on the fall “snapshot” date Campus: English and Spanish takers

who were enrolled in the school on the fall “snapshot” date

Cell Size Requirements: Performance

All students: at least 30 students, else special analyses are used Student Groups: “50 – 10% – 200”

rule** **If between 50 and up to 200 students are tested, the test takers in the group must equal 10% of all test takers for the cell to be used.

Student Groups: “30 – 10% - 50” rule SDAA measure: “30 tests – 10% - 50”

rule

Cell Size Requirements: Participation

All students: at least 40 students; else, requirement is waived Student Groups: “50 – 10% - 200”

rule** **Student groups comprised of at least 50 and up to 200 students must also represent 10% of the total students in that measure, for the groups to be used. As soon as 200 students are represented in a given student group, then the group will be used.

Not Evaluated (Monitoring interventions may occur with excessive exemptions.)

Cell Size Requirements: Completion

All Students: 40 For performance gains only, Student

Groups: 50 – 10% - 200

Student Groups: 30-10%-50 and at least 5 longitudinal dropouts*

Cell Size Requirements: Dropout

N/A Student Groups: 30-10%-50 and at least 5 annual dropouts*

44


AREA 2005 NCLB AYP Accountability Standards

2005 State Accountability Standards

Cell Size Requirements: Attendance

All Students: 7200 days in membership (40 students x 180 school days) For performance gains use only,

Student Groups: 9000 days in membership (50 students x 180 school days) – 10% - 200

Only as needed for Gold Performance Acknowledgement: District – 96% Multi Level – 96% High School – 95% Middle School – 96% Elementary School – 97% (Applies to all students and each student group)

Alternative Education Campuses

Evaluated for AYP just like any other school.

If eligible and registered, rated under the new Alternative Education Accountability (AEA) Procedure.

Sanctions Notification in first year with plans for improvement

Year 1 School Improvement (Second year of not making AYP in the same area): Technical assistance from the district; revised CIP; choice options in second year for same area

Year 2 School Improvement: All of the above and provision of supplemental educational services

Year 3 Corrective Action: Continue the above and take at least one of the following actions: • Replace school staff relevant to

failure of school • Institute and implement a new

curriculum • Significantly reduce management

authority in school • Appoint outside experts to advise

school • Extend school year or school day • Restructure internal organization of

school Year 4 Plan for Restructuring:

Continue transfer options and supplemental services; prepare plan to restructure school

Year 5 Implement Alternative Governance: Implement one of the following: • Reopen school as a charter school • Replace all or most of staff,

including principal • Enter into a contract with an entity

with a demonstrated record of effectiveness to operate school

• State takeover Any other major restructuring of

school’s governance arrangement

First year Academically Unacceptable campuses engage in intensive, focused data analyses to identify reasons for poor performance, and must choose to address these conditions either through traditional means, i.e., targeted improvement plans, or through innovative redesign plans. (limited amount of funding may be available from the state for high schools)

Second consecutive year as Academically Unacceptable campuses must identify, for Commissioner approval, a team of experts in school reform and student achievement. The team’s charge is to review the campus and recommend either that the school be reconstituted in some way, or that it be closed.

Additional sanctions for continued Unacceptable performance, including hearings before the Commissioner, are contained in statute.

Public Education Grants (PEG) program allows students from campuses that fail to achieve 50% passing rates in all subjects tested by TAKS in any two out of three consecutive years, or that are rated Academically Unacceptable in either of the last two ratings cycles, to transfer to another public school district in Texas.

45


46


REFERENCES

Anderson, G., Herr, K., & Nihlen, A. (1994). Studying your own school. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Collins, D. (1997). Achieving your vision of professional development. Tallahassee,

FL: Southeastern Regional Vision for Education. Curry, J., Doolittle, M., Huskey, B., Koehler, H., & Washington, W. (2002). Title I

Evaluation Report, 2000-01. (Publication 00.11). Austin, TX: Austin Independent School District. From http://www.austinisd.org/inside/docs/ope_T1REPORT00-01.pdf.

Curry, J., Washington, W., & Zyskowski, G. (2000). Title I Evaluation Report, 1999-2000. (Publication 99.03). Austin, TX: Austin Independent School District. Executive Summary available from http://www.austinisd.org/inside/docs/ope_Title_I_1999-2000_Exec_Summ.pdf.

Doolittle, M. (2004). Title I Evaluation, 2003-04. (Publication 03.02). Austin, TX: Austin Independent School District. From http://www.austinisd.org/inside/docs/ope_Title_I_A_Report_2003-04.pdf.

Doolittle, M. (2003). Title I Evaluation, 2002-03. (Publication 02.07). Austin, TX: Austin Independent School District. From http://www.austinisd.org/inside/docs/ope_2002_03_Title_I_A_Report.pdf.

Doolittle, M. (2002). Title I Evaluation Report, 2001-02. (Publication 01.04). Austin, TX: Austin Independent School District. From http://www.austinisd.org/inside/docs/ope_report_title1a_01_02.pdf.

Hord, S. (1997). Professional learning communities: Communities of continuous inquiry and improvement. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory. From http://www/sedl.org/pubs/change34/.

Jaeger, R. & Tucker, C. (1998). Analyzing, disaggregating, reporting, and interpreting students’ achievement test results: A guide to practice for Title I and beyond. Washington, D.C.: Council of Chief State School Officers.

Leave No Child Behind Act of 2001, P.L. 107-110, U.S. 107th Congress (2001). From http://www.ed.gov/legislation/ESEA02/.

Texas Education Agency (TEA), 2003. NCLB Bulletin, volume 1, issue 1. Austin, TX: Texas Education Agency. From http://www.tea.state.tx.us/nclb/bulletins/Bulletin1-1HQ.pdf.

Washington, W. (2005). Parent and Community Involvement Evaluation, 2004-2005. (Publication 04.05). Austin, TX: Austin Independent School District.

47


Washington, W. (2005). Title I Facilities for Neglected or Delinquent Youth Summary Report, 2004-2005. (Publication 04.02). Austin, TX: Austin Independent School District.

48

Austin Independent School District

Office of Accountability Maria Whitsett, Ph.D.

Department of Program Evaluation

Holly Williams, Ph.D.

Author Martha Doolittle, Ph.D.

Board of Trustees Doyle Valdez, President

Ave Wahrmund, Vice President Patricia Whiteside, Secretary

Cheryl Bradley Rudy Montoya, Jr.

Johna Edwards Mark Williams

Robert Schneider John Fitzpatrick

Superintendent of Schools

Pascal D. Forgione, Jr., Ph.D.

Publication Number 04.04

October 2005

Documents

TITLE I EVALUATION, 2004-2005...04.04 Title I Evaluation Report, 2004-2005 percentage of teachers remained at Title I schools (67.6%) than non-Title I schools (78.8%) from 2003-2004